RESTORATION MINISTRIES A.T.M., INC. et al

Filing 30

ORDER dismissing 4:16-cv-204, 4:16-cv-264, and 4:16-cv-265 without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court's orders. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 12/27/2016. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
RESTORATION MINISTRIES ATM,
INC., et al.,

*
*

Plaintiffs,
*
vs.
*
CAPITAL CITY BANK & TRUST CO.,
et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-204
Related Cases:
4:16-cv-264
4:16-cv-265

*
*

O R D E R
On November 15, 2016, the Court held a telephone conference
to get this case and two related cases (4:16-cv-264 and 4:16-cv265) back on track.

For the reasons explained in the hearing,

the Court issued an order permitting Plaintiffs “to file an
amended and recast complaint that includes the claims asserted
in” both this action and in 4:16-cv-265.
2016), ECF No. 28.

Text Order (Nov. 15,

The Court ordered that the amended and

recast complaint “be filed electronically by December 9, 2016.”
Id.
The Court also provided Plaintiffs with an opportunity “to
file an amended motion to extend the time within which [they
have] to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion pursuant
to FRCP 56(d).”
December 23, 2016.

Id.
Id.

The deadline for that amended motion was

Finally, the Court noted: “It is the Court's expectation
that the parties will file stipulations of dismissal for cases
4:16cv265 and 4:16cv264.”

Id.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 21, 2016—
almost two weeks after the deadline.
amended

motion

response.

to

extend

the

Plaintiffs did not file an

time

for

a

summary

judgment

And stipulations of dismissal were not filed in 4:16-

cv-264 and 4:16-cv-265.

In sum, Plaintiffs failed to comply

with the Court’s November 15, 2016 order.

The Court observes

that this failure is consistent with Plaintiffs’ approach to
this action from the very beginning.

In order to have these

actions

Court

decided

on

the

merits,

the

has

Plaintiffs off the mat” on more than one occasion.
patience

has

now

been

exhausted.

The

Court

“helped

the

The Court’s

concludes

that

Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute these actions pursuant to
the

Court’s

rules

and

orders

and

in

a

diligent

manner.

Accordingly, this action, along with 4:16-cv-264 and 4:16-cv265, are dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute
and for failure to comply with the Court’s orders.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of December, 2016.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1

If these actions are re-filed in this Court and are pursued in a
similar manner, the next dismissal will be with prejudice.

2